What does Jeb Bush get for $20 million in TV ad buys? Not much.
Jeb Bush and his supporters have spent more than twice that of any other candidate or outside group on TV ads in the 2016 presidential race. And what does the former Florida governor get for nearly $20 million, asks Mark Murray of NBC News. Apparently, not much. Bush’s poll numbers are currently languishing in the single digits both nationally and in the early primary states. Right to Rise, the pro-Bush super PAC, has made $19.5 million in ad spending for Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina. Murray notes that the campaign also spent another $438,000. In comparison, the 501c4 organization supporting fellow Floridian Marco Rubio – Conservative Solutions Project – paid half that amount, $8.4 million to date. Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, on the other hand, has spent $8.1 million, while her supporting Super PAC spent about $199,000. To put those numbers further in context, campaigns receive substantial discounts on TV ad time, whereas Super PACs and other outside groups may have to pony up to four times as much for similar ad space. Murray, along with NBC News partners SMG Delta, have calculated who spent what in the 2016 presidential ad wars – a not-quite-perfect way to measure winners of the secret advertising primary. Through Nov. 21, the leaders are Bush with $19.9 million ($19.5 million from Right to Rise Super PAC, $438K from campaign), followed by Rubio with $8.4 million (all from outside group Conservative Solutions Project), Clinton with $8.3 million ($8.1 million from campaign, $199K from Priorities USA Super PAC) and Ohio Gov. John Kasich with $7.3 million (all from two outside groups). After Kasich, comes New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie with $5.7 million ($5.3 million from America Leads Super PAC, $407K from campaign), Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal – who just dropped out of the race – with $3.3 million (all from outside groups), Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders with $3 million (all from his campaign), South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham at $1.7 million ($1.6 million from Super PAC, $100K from campaign) and retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson with $1.5 million (all from his campaign). For the week of Nov. 15-21, the biggest spenders were Bush with $2 million, all from his Super PAC; Sanders with $940,000, all from his campaign; Clinton with $741,000, all from the campaign; Rubio with $619,000, all from Conservative Solutions; Kasich with $352,000, all from his supporting Super PAC New Day for America, Christie with $313,000, all from America Leads Super PAC; and Carson with $214,000, all of which came from his campaign.
Robert Bentley supportive of lottery plan, with a catch
Gov. Robert Bentley came out in support of a lottery plan that is circulating among Montgomery law makers – but with one condition. Bentley has said he would change his stance on the issue if the revenues flow into the state’s General Revenue fund, as opposed to being earmarked for education purposes only as one going proposal would provide. The governor has by and large been opposed to any expansion of gambling, though that has softened in recent months. If the lottery is “clean” and resultant revenues flow into GR, “I would be willing to talk about it positively, but if it’s not I will have to go the other way,” Bentley said. The stipulation that the money go into the general budged, however, will likely reduce support among many lawmakers and Alabama voters, who see a lottery as worthwhile only if goes directly to the education budget. “If we put this before a vote of the people and it fails, I don’t think it will ever pass again,” said state Rep. Craig Ford, the House’s Democratic caucus leader. “I think it is more palatable to the people of Alabama if it goes to the education trust fund,” Ford said. Asked whether Bentley’s position is designed to ensure a lottery does not pass, Ford said: “It could be.” Bentley would not be able to veto or otherwise scuttle the bill by himself since the measure would be on the ballot during 2016 General Election in November, though he could throw his weight either behind or against the bill on the stump or through an advertisement campaign.
Robertson/Barth/Jahera: Legislators step up to tackle Alabama’s underfunded pensions
On November 9, a newspaper in North Alabama published an editorial suggesting that any legislative interest in our state’s public pension system would inevitably spell “disaster” for retirees. The editorial also claims that legislators may be plotting to “shore up” the General Fund through the “cash cow” of Alabama’s public pension system. In reality, a handful of Alabama legislators are undertaking the mammoth task of ensuring that our state can fulfill the obligations owed to current and future public retirees. This is no small task, as Alabama’s public pensions are underfunded by at least $15.2 billion. To put this number into perspective, every household in Alabama would need to contribute $8,274 to fully fund the system. To the casual observer, an unfunded pension liability is about as abstract a concept as the national debt. Many taxpayers may wonder why it even matters–will the bill ever really come due? Politicians in both cases often get away doing nothing, because they know that they won’t be around when the bill does come due to future generations. And every year that these problems aren’t dealt with, they worsen. Alabama’s public pensions, unlike most private sector pensions, are based on a defined benefit formula. This means that state employees pay into their retirement accounts, as do their state employers, and the Retirement Systems of Alabama (RSA) invests that money with a guaranteed return of 8%. Whether or not the investments actually return 8% matters little to state employees, who will receive the same contractual benefit no matter what. How is this possible? Because the Alabama Legislature-led by the same individuals now being wrongfully accused of trying to raid the pension system–has been faithfully paying a large sum of taxpayer dollars to RSA each year to cover its shortfalls. This year alone, legislators sent RSA nearly $1 billion. And they didn’t have to. The state is not legally required to pay the “annual required contribution” (known as the ARC), yet the legislature has never failed to make that payment–even when it has been painful to do so, as it was this year. The ARC is the yearly amount needed to fund current and future retirement benefits and liabilities. Why has the legislature made this payment? To keep the system solvent for our public retirees. Legislators in states like Illinois, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania chose not to fund the ARC, obligating taxpayers to further subsidize these drastically underfunded pensions. What Alabama’s legislators have begun to realize, however, is that it’s getting harder and harder to make that substantial annual payment to RSA, especially with no end in sight (it’s expected to increase by 3.4% this year). The legislature’s pension study committee, led by Senator Arthur Orr and Representative Lynn Greer, is taking this concern seriously. The reforms that the committee is contemplating will have no impact on the benefits of any current retiree or state employee; however, these changes would aid in protecting the retirement that these individuals have already earned. To do so, the rise of our unfunded liability (which has increased by an astounding 625% since 2003) must be halted. The defined benefit plan exposes the State of Alabama (the employer) to the maximum risk of future funding shortfalls. As long as we continue to add new employees to this plan, we risk going even deeper into pension debt. To avoid this situation, the legislative study committee is looking at pension options for future employees that would reduce the state’s long-term risk of pension underfunding and allow Alabama to pay down its current pension debt. It’s a painstaking task, but one that could have a sizable and lasting payoff for state employees and taxpayers alike. Over the years, a number of state leaders have tried but failed to accomplish pension reform for many of the same reasons that congressmen have given up on fighting debt limit increases. For instance, there’s a great deal of misinformation surrounding the debate that heavily clouds the merits and necessity of reform. Some will argue that the $15 billion pension debt isn’t even problematic. The general public is largely apathetic to the plight of state employees, who have better retirement benefits than many Alabamians, and state employees are led to believe that reform efforts signal that someone is after their retirement. In spite of these troubling realities, a few key legislators have decided to roll up their sleeves and attempt to deal with this critical issue. They should be applauded–by state employees, for working to safeguard their retirement funds; by their colleagues, for taking on a weighty assignment that nobody else wanted; and by taxpayers, who may not care much about public pensions, but have been and will continue to be called upon to “shore up” Alabama’s retirement system unless reforms are made. Katherine Green Robertson serves as Vice President of the Alabama Policy Institute. Dr. James R. Barth is the Lowder Eminent Scholar of Finance and Dr. John S. Jahera is the Lowder Professor of Finance at Auburn University.
Robert Bentley: ‘there were few questions answered’ during White House Syrian refugee call
Governor Robert Bentley was among a group of 34 governors who were on a conference call with the White House Tuesday about the Obama Administration’s plans to take in roughly 10,000 refugees from Syria. White House officials arranged the 90-minute call, led by White House chief of staff Denis McDonough, after dozens of state leaders rejected the program in the wake the Paris terrorist attacks. Bentley is one of 28 of the nation’s governors, which accounts for more than half, that has since moved to block Syrian refugees from resettling in their states. “While the White House attempted to share information with Governors who have refused the relocation of Syrian refugees out of concern for their state’s security, there were few questions answered by the Obama Administration,” explained Bentley. “In a letter to the President yesterday, I expressed my frustration over the lack of information provided to states on how Syrian refugees are vetted. Other Governors shared those same concerns on the call with the White House. Governors expressed frustration over the failure to communicate with states. Federal officials admitted the refugee process is flawed and outdated and may need to be revised given the terrorists attacks in Paris.” Officials from the White House, the Department of Homeland Security, the FBI, the National Counterterrorism Center, and the Department of State arranged the call to provide information about their refugee-screening measures and policies, and address concerns raised by governors in the wake of the terror attacks on Paris. “Despite Tuesday’s call, I still have strong concerns on the vetting process of Syrian refugees,” Bentley continued. “I am joining fellow Governors this week to discuss this important issue at the Republican Governors Association Annual Conference. I will continue to press the Obama Administration for answers and will keep the safety and security of Alabamians a top priority.”
Marco Rubio wins support of Idaho billionaire Frank VanderSloot
Idaho billionaire Frank VanderSloot said Wednesday he will support Republican Marco Rubio for president, adding another prominent donor to the Florida senator’s endorsement list. “He’s clearly, in our opinion, the brightest of the bunch,” said VanderSloot, founder and chief executive of the health care products company Melaleuca. “He has a great understanding of what it takes to have a robust economy and he has a real firm grasp on international affairs.” VanderSloot said he plans to raise money for Rubio, but has not decided how much to give personally. In 2012, VanderSloot and his company gave $1.1 million to Restore Our Future, a super political action committee that helped GOP nominee Mitt Romney. He also was one of Romney’s national campaign finance co-chairs, raising at least $2 million for the campaign. VanderSloot said he and his wife gave $50,000 in June to the Conservative Solutions PAC, which is backing Rubio’s campaign. VanderSloot has contributed $2,700, the maximum allowed by law, to the presidential campaign of former technology executive Carly Fiorina. He said Fiorina ran a close second in his deliberations about who to endorse, but he concluded she lacks Rubio’s charisma. “Marco Rubio has a big edge on Carly Fiorina on the likeability factor,” he said. “He is just so dang likable.” VanderSloot is the latest major GOP donor to sign on with Rubio, joining investor Paul Singer and hedge fund manager Cliff Asness. VanderSloot said many big donors have been hesitant to make a public endorsement before a clear front-runner emerged. But he said such a delay will only help candidates such as billionaire businessman Donald Trump and retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson — candidates he doesn’t think can unite the country and win the White House. “We’re stepping out earlier, because it’s a dangerous game to play if we don’t,” he said. Republished with permission of the Associated Press.
Jeb Bush calls for U.S. ground forces to fight Islamic State
Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush on Wednesday called for the U.S. to send more troops to the Middle East to fight the Islamic State. “This is the war of our time,” the former Florida governor said at the Citadel five days after Islamic State militants attacked Paris and killed 129 people. “Radical Islamic terrorists have declared war on the western world. Their aim is our total destruction. We can’t withdraw from this threat, or negotiate with it. We have but once choice: to defeat it.” Bush had planned for weeks to deliver a speech about Pentagon and military purchasing reform at the prestigious South Carolina military college. But the horrific events in France Friday moved Bush, who has supported the potential deployment of troops in Iraq and Syria, to call for ground troops. “The United States, in conjunction with our NATO allies and more Arab partners, will need to increase our presence on the ground,” he added, calling air power insufficient. He offered no specifics, but said the number of Americans sent to the region should be “in line with what our military generals recommend, not politicians.” The speech came as European nations hunted for conspirators in the attack and amid a fierce political debate within the U.S. over whether to limit or halt the resettlement of refugees fleeing war-ravaged Syria. One of the Paris bombers was thought to have arrived in a wave of migrants surging toward the West, but a top German official later said the Syrian passport found at a Paris attack scene was likely a fake. Bush, the brother and son of presidents, has projected himself as a potential commander in chief able to handle such challenges. But his focus on national security has increased as his own campaign for the presidential nomination has struggled to gain traction and especially since the Paris attacks. “The brutal savagery is a reminder of what is at stake in this election,” Bush said. “We are choosing the leader of the free world. And if these attacks remind us of anything, it’s that we are living in serious times that require serious leadership.” It’s no mystery why Bush made the speech in South Carolina. Many of the Republican primary voters in the early-voting Southern primary state are retired and active-duty military. Bush is not the only Republican presidential candidate who supports sending ground troops to fight the Islamic State. South Carolina’s own senior Sen. Lindsey Graham has been an aggressive advocate. Ohio Gov. John Kasich has also suggested sending U.S. troops. Florida Sen. Marco Rubio was generally supportive of President Obama‘s decision to put 50 special operations troops in Syria, and has suggested the number ought to grow. However, he hasn’t called for a larger scale mobilization. Bush has long faulted President Barack Obama’s administration, and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton — the leading Democratic presidential candidate — for allowing wholesale federal spending cuts prompted by the 2013 budget reconciliation after Congress and the president were unable to craft more strategic cuts. The cuts affected military and non-military spending alike, at a time when conflicts in Syria and Iraq “spiraled out of control as President Obama and Hillary Clinton failed to act,” Bush said. And while Bush has often referred to the Islamic State as an unconventional threat, his prescription for the military includes heavier spending on its conventional elements. He called for doubling the U.S. Marine Corps’ battle-ready strength to 186,000, and updating the U.S. nuclear weapons capacity. He also called for increasing production of next-generation stealth bombers. Such aircraft, such as the F-35 joint strike fighter, carry a price tag of roughly $150 million apiece. Bush did not specifically propose a way to pay for the buildup. Bush, a year ago viewed as the likely front-runner, has failed to move to the top tier of GOP White House hopefuls in a field where political outsiders Donald Trump and Ben Carson and charismatic young lawmakers Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz have eclipsed him. While Bush projected himself as a potential wartime commander in South Carolina, he also appeared on Tuesday to be anticipating criticism that he would wage war in the Middle East, as his father and brother did when they were president. Bush’s brother, George W. Bush, left office with low approval in part due to his handling of the 2003 invasion of the war in Iraq, and its aftermath. “I think it’s important for the next president, whoever he or she may be, to learn from the lessons of the past and use those lessons to focus on the future,” Bush told an audience of more than 300 at Coastal Carolina University in Conway Tuesday. On Thursday in New York, Clinton will deliver an address outlining her strategy for defeating ISIS as well as her overall plan for fighting radical jihadism. Republished with permission of the Associated Press.
Josh Earnest gives props to Obama administration for Paris attacks response
White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest credited President Obama‘s “early investment in our military and our intelligence” that put the French “in a position to carry out this kind of response” to last week’s Paris attacks. Earnest spoke Wednesday on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” program. “The United States and France has been for some time working to deepen our military and intelligence cooperation when it comes to Syria,” Earnest said. “And we have done that and we followed through on that. “And it is because of that cooperation and because of the kind of logistical support that only the United States can provide, that France is actually even in a position to ramp up the strikes that they took,” he added. “So we’re seeing the fruits of (President Obama’s) early investment based on the France carrying out these actions.” For example, also Wednesday, police raided a suburban Paris apartment where they believed the suspected mastermind of last week’s attacks was holed up. The Islamic State group has claimed responsibility. Wednesday’s operation ended with two deaths and seven arrests but no clear information on the fugitive’s fate. The dead included a woman who blew herself up with an explosive vest and a man hit by projectiles and grenades at the end of a seven-hour siege in the Paris suburb of Saint-Denis. “I think what is also true, what you’ve also seen, is the United States use all of our law enforcement and intelligence resources to assist the French as they carry out their investigation and even conduct some of the law enforcement activities that they’ve been engaged in,” Earnest said. “So we are committed to being sure that we are standing shoulder to shoulder with our oldest ally as they confront this threat on their own soil,” he said. “There should be no denying the fact that the only reason that the French are in a position to carry out this kind of response is because of the early investment in our military and our intelligence that the President ordered more than a year ago.” But former FBI special agent Clint van Zandt told U.S. News & World Report on Tuesday that France’s heavy response doesn’t necessarily mean Islamic State won’t try to attack within the United States. ” … I think it’s a logical escalation for them to do,” van Zandt told the magazine. “If one wants to expand their base of recruits, one of the ways you do it is showing success.” The video can be watched here: https://on.msnbc.com/1PzKOFr The Associated Press contributed to this report.
One of last original Tuskegee airmen instructors dies at 96
Milton Pitts Crenchaw, a flight instructor who trained many of the U.S. military’s Tuskegee Airmen, has died in Georgia. He was 96. Crenchaw’s daughter, Dolores Singleton, said he died Tuesday at Piedmont Henry Hospital near Atlanta after battling cardiovascular disease and pneumonia. Singleton said her father, a native of Little Rock, Arkansas, was among the last surviving instructors of the Tuskegee Airmen. They were the first African-Americans to fly combat airplanes in World War II. A biography by the Butler Center for Arkansas Studies says Crenchaw trained hundreds of pilots at the Tuskegee Institute in Alabama in the 1940s, and later was instrumental in creating an aviation program at Philander Smith College in Little Rock. Singleton said her father loved his country, and was always humble about the accolades he received. Republished with permission of the Associated Press.
Bradley Byrne introduces bill to defund Syrian refugee resettlement program
In the aftermath of terrorist attacks on Paris last week, Alabama Congressman Bradley Bryne (AL-01) is standing up for the millions concerned with ISIS’ next move — introducing legislation that would defund the Syrian refugee resettlement program. Bryne, a member of the House Armed Services Committee, introduced H.R. 4031, the Defund the Syrian Refugee Resettlement Program Act of 2015 Wednesday, which would eliminate all funding from going toward resettling refugees from Syria, in effort to keep the American people safe. “The reality remains that we cannot adequately screen individuals coming into the United States from Syria, so we must use every legislative tool at our disposal to stop the Syrian refugee resettlement program,” said Byrne. “I strongly believe our best chance for success is to use the ‘power of the purse’ to cut off funding to the program, and my bill would achieve that goal.” For weeks, Byrne has spoken out about the clear national security threat posed by allowing a mass influx of Syrian refugees into the United States. In September, Byrne sent a letter to the State Department requesting additional information about the screening process Syrian refugees must undergo. He also attended a classified briefing to learn more about the screening process. Based on what he learned in the briefing and after receiving a response from the State Department, Byrne Monday sent a letter to President Obama demanding he halt the Syrian refugee resettlement program. “The top priority of the federal government is to keep the American people safe, and we should never lose sight of that goal,” Byrne continued. “Despite what President Obama may believe, our nation is in a state of war and that requires major precautions to be taken.”
Jeb Bush using Paris attacks to pitch broad military buildup
Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush is calling for a broad military buildup and says the U.S. armed forces have been left ill-prepared to defeat the Islamic State, blamed for the Paris attacks that killed at least 129 and wounded hundreds more. The former Florida governor is projecting himself as a potential commander in chief able to handle such challenges, as his presidential bid tries to gain traction in a primary campaign likely to be shaken up after the Paris attacks. “The brutal savagery is a reminder of what is at stake in this election,” Bush says in excerpts of a speech he plans to deliver Wednesday at The Military College of South Carolina, known as The Citadel. “We are choosing the leader of the free world,” he said, according to passages provided to The Associated Press in advance. “And if these attacks remind us of anything, it’s that we are living in serious times that require serious leadership.” The speech, which had been scheduled before Friday’s deadly attacks, initially was to be more focused on Pentagon policy and equipment procurement reform. But the attacks prompted a quick shift in focus. Bush hinted at the themes while campaigning Tuesday in South Carolina, where many Republican primary voters are retired and active-duty military, and where support runs high for the U.S. armed forces. Bush has long faulted President Barack Obama‘s administration, and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton — the leading Democratic presidential candidate — for allowing wholesale federal spending cuts prompted by the 2013 budget reconciliation after Congress and the president were unable to craft more strategic cuts. The cuts affected military and non-military spending alike, at a time when conflicts in Syria and Iraq “spiraled out of control as President Obama and Hillary Clinton failed to act,” Bush said. Bush’s campaign Tuesday released a broad outline of his proposal, to restore the cuts and set goals to build up the military in several areas. Many echoed points he has made over the past six months as a candidate, such as providing military training and support for allies in Eastern Europe and the Baltic region, where Russia has been applying pressure. It also included some new points, including Bush’s desire to update the United States’ nuclear weapons capacity. Bush also calls for increasing production of next-generation stealth bombers. And he also calls for doubling the U.S. Marine Corps’ battle-ready strength to 186,000. “I believe in the principle that the greater our superiority in military power, the less likely it is that we will have to assert that power, or be provoked into using it,” Bush said in the excerpts. Bush, a year ago viewed as the likely front-runner, has failed to move to the top tier of GOP White House hopefuls in a field where political outsiders Donald Trump and Ben Carson and charismatic young lawmakers Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz have eclipsed him. But Bush hinted Tuesday, campaigning in Columbia, that the Paris attacks could change the focus for choosing the next commander in chief. Bush also appears to be anticipating criticism that he would wage war in Iraq, as his father and brother did when they were president. “I think it’s important for the next president, whoever he or she may be, to learn from the lessons of the past and use those lessons to focus on the future,” Bush told an audience of more than 300 at Coastal Carolina University in Conway Tuesday. On Thursday in New York, Clinton will deliver an address outlining her strategy for defeating ISIS as well as her overall plan for fighting radical jihadism. Republished with permission of the Associated Press.
Daniel Sutter: Gambling is about freedom, not government revenue
The Alabama legislature considered a lottery and expansion of casino gambling this year to generate new revenues for the state. Freedom, not state government finances, is the reason we should expand gambling. The legal status of gambling reflects the character of our society and government. Do we want to be a nation where people try to force their life choices on others, or one where we accept our differences and cooperate when possible? Libertarian political theory applies the non-initiation of force principle to guide our actions toward others. We can use force to protect ourselves against others, but not initiate its use. The core function of government is to protect our rights against criminals or foreign invaders. Gamblers do not use force against others when they buy lottery tickets or play blackjack, so I start with a strong presumption that gambling should be legal. Can a good argument other than protection against force be made to restrict a consensual activity like gambling? Sadly many Americans with gambling problems have brought ruin upon themselves and their families. Societal self-constraint to reduce the harm caused by problem gambling represents the strongest argument for government restriction of gambling. Of course Alabama can’t prevent other states from having legal gambling. But if Alabamians must travel to Biloxi or Las Vegas to gamble or Florida or Georgia to buy lottery tickets, perhaps problem gamblers will not ruin themselves before they can get help. We do not, however, prohibit all activities and products, which can cause harm. For example, even though 38,000 Americans died from accidental poisonings and 3,000 died from unintentional drowning in 2013, and we do not ban keeping cleaners or chemicals in our homes or outlaw swimming pools. We do not ban credit cards because some people run up excessive debts or ban cars because they can be used as get away vehicles in robberies. Furthermore, prohibiting an activity does not prevent it from occurring. Efforts to enforce the law are costly, and the costs of enforcement must be factored into the equation. Problem gamblers may harm themselves worse when betting illegally than in a casino. Prohibition as societal self-constraint must balance the harm avoided against the costs imposed, including the restriction of freedom for responsible gamblers. Ideally we should combine freedom with increasingly rigorous restrictions on those exhibiting signs of problem gambling. I believe that legal gambling is more likely to achieve this than prohibition. Some gambling foes point to allegedly higher rates of crime in places where gambling is legal as grounds for prohibition. But any such association is irrelevant because people can, and millions of Americans do, gamble without stealing or committing assaults. We do not close parks or other places where crimes often occur, but instead employ police and punish the criminals. Prohibition based on some peoples’ dislike for gambling, I think, is a poor argument. Why should one group of citizens be allowed to impose their preferences on how to live life on others? When government is allowed to ban consensual activities, ultimately any activities lawmakers decide are sufficiently disliked can be banned. Why should we set up a political process in which our own favorite leisure activities can be banned if they fall into disfavor? Furthermore, politicizing consensual activities unnecessarily creates conflict. Alabamians would not be required to buy lottery tickets or visit casinos, so non-gamblers can still live as they wish with expanded gambling. The Golden Rule provides wise counsel that we shouldn’t go down this conflict-filled path at all. Does gambling provide a good revenue source for state governments? Because people largely pay gambling taxes voluntarily, the economic costs of collecting a gambling tax will be small, which is a factor in favor of taxation. A gambling tax is disproportionately paid by lower income households, and so is what is known as a relatively regressive tax. But legal gambling does not have to be heavily taxed, and the argument for legalization is based on freedom, not a relatively small amount of revenue. Gambling would only saddle low income households with a heavy tax burden if we chose to tax gambling heavily. Daniel Sutter is the Charles G. Koch Professor of Economics with the Manuel H. Johnson Center for Political Economy at Troy University and host of Econversations on TrojanVision
Republicans clash over Syrian refugees as 2016 looms
Some Republicans are pushing back against aggressive opposition in their party to Syrian refugees resettling in the U.S., in fresh evidence of a rift within the GOP that threatens to complicate the party’s outreach to minorities heading into the 2016 presidential contest. These Republicans have joined Democrats who liken the refugee backlash to the U.S. government turning away Jews fleeing Nazi Germany and placing Japanese in internment camps during World War II. While conservatives cite security concerns following the Paris attacks that may have involved Syrian refugees, others in the party fear the GOP’s position in Congress and state capitals across the country reeks of xenophobia. “A refugee is someone who has a credible fear that they’re going to be killed,” said Alfonso Aguilar, a Republican who served in the George W. Bush administration and now leads the Latino Partnership for Conservative Principles. “To close the door reminds me of FDR not letting Jews land in the U.S. during the years of Nazi Germany. Where are they going to go?” Aguilar said moderate voters who hold outsized influence in general elections could view Republican opposition as extreme and intolerant. He warned that could haunt the GOP in next fall’s general election. But Republicans pressing for a pause in the refugee influx see a need to be mindful, too, about fears of an attack on U.S. soil days after the deadliest assault in France in 70 years. A number of GOP presidential candidates, governors and Senate Republicans have issued calls to delay or stop accepting Syrian refugees, pointing to indications that one of the perpetrators in Friday’s attacks might have entered France with a Syrian passport. Legislation introduced by Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, a GOP presidential candidate, could allow Republicans to block President Barack Obama‘s goal of bringing 10,000 more Syrian refugees to the U.S. during the current budget year. “Filling your country up with people who have a completely different belief system … and expecting they won’t rise up against their benefactor is foolish,” Rep. Steve King of Iowa, a leading immigration hardliner, said in an interview Tuesday. He added that no refugees should be permitted into the U.S. from Syria “unless they be Christian refugees that are facing genocide.” That’s exactly the kind of message Republican leaders hoped to avoid after a disastrous 2012 election in which minority voters shunned GOP candidates in near record numbers. While there are few Muslim voters in America, the pointed Republican resistance against Muslim refugees comes as party leaders try to win over other minority groups. The Republican National Committee outlined a series of recommendations after the last presidential contest calling for a more welcoming and inclusive tone on divisive issues such as immigration. “The perception that the GOP does not care about people is doing great harm to the party and its candidates on the federal level, especially in presidential years,” the RNC’s Growth and Opportunity report found. “It is a major deficiency that must be addressed.” One of the report’s authors, RNC committeeman Henry Barbour, said Tuesday that it’s “common sense to tap the brakes” on Syrian refugees given security concerns, but “people need to be careful with their tone.” “This is about safety,” Barbour said. “This isn’t about keeping out this religion or that religion.” Former New Hampshire Republican Party chairman Fergus Cullen said there is “a little bit of ugliness” around the refugee debate. “A specific group of refugees is being treated differently because of their country of natural origin and faith,” he said. “This is inconsistent with America’s history and our founding creed. That is alarming.” It’s not exactly like rounding up Japanese Americans into internment camps during World War II, Culllen continued, “but it’s the same line of thinking” that feeds “immigrant bashing.” The U.S. has admitted fewer than 2,200 Syrian refugees since Oct. 1, 2011 and the process for entering this country as a refugee is lengthy. Obama administration officials insist the vetting is good and there is no need to back down from the goal of admitting 10,000 more refugees this year. The administration announced that goal earlier in the fall after a photograph of a little Syrian boy washed up on a beach sparked calls for compassion, including from some congressional Republicans. Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, a GOP candidate for president, was one of those who supported accepting more Syrian refugees. This week, he called for a “timeout” in such admissions. Many GOP candidates, already skeptical if not hostile to welcoming refugees, came out even stronger in recent days. Donald Trump said the U.S. should increase surveillance of mosques, consider closing any tied to radicals and be prepared to suspend some civil liberties. Ben Carson said, “Until we can sort out the bad guys, we must not be foolish.” Regarding Syrians already in the U.S., he added: “I would watch them very carefully.” Tea party leader Mark Meckler said there should be no room for debate. “Anybody who takes a soft stance on this is out of touch with the electorate and out of touch with the common sense,” he said, condemning those Republicans calling for tolerance. “I think that’s absurd and shows why people from that wing of the party are now the fringe.” Republished with permission of The Associated Press.
